Let's have a discussion on the reasons (keyword) why we believe a fetus is or is not a person

[AreaCode707]

Some of you may remember my thread about whether your views are changeable or not. This is one of my views that I consider to be not very changeable.

My perspective is that a fetus is a person, and this is some of my reasoning. I would very much like to hear the reasoning from the other side about why you would not consider a fetus to be a person.

Identity
A fetus at conception (prior to implantation) has its own unique DNA. To me, that is a sufficiently differentiating factor to define a fetus as an individual, inarguably with a genetic identity of its own. Whether genetic identity constitutes an entire identity is arguable, of course (though it is sufficient for me), so I look at other factors in identity. Is it required that one must be conscious of one's experience to have an identity? Since newly-born babies do not, my conclusion is no. Is it required that one must have some type of experience to have an identity? Apparently the birth process is the experience that changes a non-entity to an individual with a unique identity (given that there is no societal argument about the legality or morality of aborting post-birth.) That leads me to question what is so special about the birth process that it confers an identity and all the rights thereof. But then, maybe that's a red herring, leading to...

Ability to survive outside the womb
Maybe the defining point of identity is when a fetus can exist without necessarily being a burden on a single human being. Naturally infants are a burden on somebody, but the burden of a born infant can be passed around, rather than foisted on a single unwilling victim. This fits in with people who believe in legalizing abortion but not past certain points. (It is pointing out the obvious that a fetus, if left alone, will generally become a person.) But yet, there really is no hard and fast rule on how old a fetus has to be before it can survive outside the womb. There is a point when it definitely could not, a point when it definitely could, and a fuzzy line in between where some might and some might not. So, assuming survival ability is the criteria for personhood, what do we do with those fuzzy line fetuses? Err on the side that abortion might be aborting somebody with practical rights to life? Or err on the side that unless we know for nearly certain that the fetus can survive it is not a person? This also brings with it the question of changing standards as we go through medical advances.

I'm sure I've got more to say on this but I'm tired of rambling now and would rather read what you have to say.

Summary:
I am inclined to consider a fetus a person because (a) it has a unique genetic identity, (b) will become a person in an inarguable sense if left alone, and (c - subpoint) because it is nearly impossible to draw an accurate line on the ability of a fetus to survive on its own and I am for erring on the side of caution.

 

[AreaCode707]

I just talked to my husband and he helped me clarify one of the points I was making.

What does genetic identity have to do with metaphysical realities, was his question.

My answer was that once you have a genetic identity, you have an "other". You cannot claim to know, fully and truthfully, the state of consciousness of that other. Prior to a genetic identity, there is no other about which to question the state of consciousness.

 

[CycloWizard]

I posted this quite a while ago and not many people were interested in discussing it. Apparently, many people have a hard time wrapping their brains around the idea that 'human' and 'person' are not one and the same. My own take is that they are, indeed, the same thing.

Many efforts have been undertaken by various parties to set out criteria by which a person (i.e. an entity who may be attributed rights) must be defined. I will lay out my own personal argument for this case here.



Many arguments have been put for asserting that humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood and, therefore, rights. The arguments typically revolve around several points regarding the abilities of the embryo/fetus. A list of these arguments is provided below.

An embryo/fetus is only a person when it develops a heartbeat.
This statement infers that a person is defined by having a heartbeat. Thus, rights cannot be conferred on someone suffering from cardiac arrest. Since society confers rights on those suffering from cardiac arrest, it is obvious that this is not a necessary criterion for the conferring of rights. Further, as many animals have a heartbeat but are not given rights, it is clear that this criterion is not sufficient for personhood.
An embryo/fetus is only a person when it develops brainwaves.
This statement infers that a person is defined by having brainwaves. Thus, people whose brainwaves stop for any reason would be deprived rights. Obviously, this is not the case.
i. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

ii. http://www.cryonics.org/surgery.html

iii. http://my.webmd.com/hw/epilepsy/aa22249.asp?printing=true

Since society confers rights on those suffering from a lapse in brain activity, it is obvious that this is not a necessary criterion for the conferring of rights. Further, as all animals have brainwaves but are not given rights, it is clear that this criterion is not sufficient for personhood.
An embryo/fetus is only a person when it develops the ability to feel pain.
This statement infers that a person is defined by having the ability to feel pain. Thus, people who cannot feel pain would be deprived rights. Since society confers rights on those suffering from a lack of the ability to feel pain (such as those lacking brain activity and under anesthesia), it is obvious that this is not a necessary criterion for the conferring of rights. Further, as many animals have the ability to feel pain but are not given rights, it is clear that this criterion is not sufficient for personhood.


So, there must be some quality that is more innate to a person than any of these quantifiable things. It is clear that society bestows rights on the condition of human life. Indeed, rights are even accorded to the human dead in most societies. Thus, it appears that humanity is sufficient for the conferment of rights, and being a member of this species appears sufficient for personhood. However, it stands to reason that society might grant rights to an alien species that have ?intelligence? similar to our own. So, then, it is necessary to determine how to quantify ?intelligence? above and beyond the level of instinctual behavior.



One might argue that ?intelligence? is the understanding of one?s surroundings.

Objection: All animals must have some level of understanding of their surroundings to survive. Thus, this criterion is obviously insufficient for personhood.



So, perhaps ?intelligence? is the development of this understanding.

Objection: All animals develop understanding of their surroundings as they mature. Thus, this criterion is obviously insufficient for personhood.



?Intelligence? is the self-motivated development of understanding.

Objection: Survival of animals seems to motivate their development of understanding of surroundings and is therefore self-motivated. Thus, this criterion is obviously insufficient for personhood.



At this point, it is clear that some distinction between the cursory ?intellect? of the common animal be differentiated from that of a person. So, perhaps the prior terminology needs adjustment and self-motivated should be replaced with conscious. Thus, ?intelligence? is the conscious development of understanding. This seems reasonable, but is heavily dependent on the definition of conscious. As previously stated, this term is used to differentiate between the instinctual behavior of a mere animal and the behavior of a person.



What, then, is this distinction? Human and animal actions are both suggested by instinct. Thus, the difference between humans and animals must be that humans have some mechanism for acting contrary to their own instinct. This mechanism must be logic, or the ability to render a conscious choice. Combining this realization with the previously derived result (that being a member of an intelligent species is sufficient for personhood), the conclusion is obvious: personhood is warranted by all members of a species that exhibits the ability to choose.

 

[charrison]

It cannot be argued that a fetus is not human. An abortion will terminate a human life and that is all there is too it.

However, there is not guarantee a fetus will make it to term, so one could argue that it is not a person till born. However the odds of a live delivery after the first trimester are quite high. Also medical technology is pushing back the number of weeks premature a baby can be and still survive. Premies are surviving very early in the 3trimester now.

 

[AreaCode707]

Thanks for the post, CycloWizard. Because I would generally be a little frustrated at somebody with views opposite mine if they posted an article or other pre-prepared text and did not make much comment on their own thoughts, I would like to ask you to type up some of your own thoughts in addition.

Just working to maintain a balance of my own method of viewing responses, trying to stay equal and fair.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: charrison

It cannot be argued that a fetus is not human. An abortion will terminate a human life and that is all there is too it.

However, there is not guarantee a fetus will make it to term, so one could argue that it is not a person till born. However the odds of a live delivery after the first trimester are quite high. Also medical technology is pushing back the number of weeks premature a baby can be and still survive. Premies are surviving very early in the 3trimester now.

I beg to differ with you on one point. It can be argued that a fetus is not a human/person/right-bearing individual. It often is. What I would like to hear from both sides is WHY you think a fetus is or is not a person. Do you have more comment on why you consider a fetus to be a person?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: charrison

It cannot be argued that a fetus is not human. An abortion will terminate a human life and that is all there is too it.

However, there is not guarantee a fetus will make it to term, so one could argue that it is not a person till born. However the odds of a live delivery after the first trimester are quite high. Also medical technology is pushing back the number of weeks premature a baby can be and still survive. Premies are surviving very early in the 3trimester now.

I beg to differ with you on one point. It can be argued that a fetus is not a human/person/right-bearing individual. It often is. What I would like to hear from both sides is WHY you think a fetus is or is not a person. Do you have more comment on why you consider a fetus to be a person?

A fetus is human, it cannot be anything other than human. Unless you blindly want to ignore biology.

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: HotChic
I just talked to my husband and he helped me clarify one of the points I was making.

What does genetic identity have to do with metaphysical realities, was his question.

My answer was that once you have a genetic identity, you have an "other". You cannot claim to know, fully and truthfully, the state of consciousness of that other. Prior to a genetic identity, there is no other about which to question the state of consciousness.

That's a rather poor argument. That would qualify a cold virus as an "other." I really don't think that you will be able to use existentialism to support a genetic argument (though you could likely do so for other arguments.)

Your claim that genetic fusion is the beginnings of an other is just as arbitrary and unknowable as any estimate on that other's conciousness.

And I'm pretty comfortable saying that nothing without neurons can have a consciousness. I don't think that that's an arbitrary distinction.

That being said, I do think that a feotus does have moral weight. The thing is, I don't see why the same arguments against abortion can't be used to enact laws enforcing involuntary organ transplants from parent to child.

But this is kinda off-topic.

Kudos for trying to elevate this often nasty topic.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: charrison

It cannot be argued that a fetus is not human. An abortion will terminate a human life and that is all there is too it.

However, there is not guarantee a fetus will make it to term, so one could argue that it is not a person till born. However the odds of a live delivery after the first trimester are quite high. Also medical technology is pushing back the number of weeks premature a baby can be and still survive. Premies are surviving very early in the 3trimester now.

I beg to differ with you on one point. It can be argued that a fetus is not a human/person/right-bearing individual. It often is. What I would like to hear from both sides is WHY you think a fetus is or is not a person. Do you have more comment on why you consider a fetus to be a person?

A fetus is not a person.

A person is defined as an individual. A fetus does not conform to any characteristics of an individual, it is merely a shell. A unique genetic identity does not make a person... it makes a homo sapiens, an animal (not even, as it is only an embryo), and a member of our species, but not yet a person by any measure.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: charrison

It cannot be argued that a fetus is not human. An abortion will terminate a human life and that is all there is too it.

However, there is not guarantee a fetus will make it to term, so one could argue that it is not a person till born. However the odds of a live delivery after the first trimester are quite high. Also medical technology is pushing back the number of weeks premature a baby can be and still survive. Premies are surviving very early in the 3trimester now.

I beg to differ with you on one point. It can be argued that a fetus is not a human/person/right-bearing individual. It often is. What I would like to hear from both sides is WHY you think a fetus is or is not a person. Do you have more comment on why you consider a fetus to be a person?

A fetus is not a person.

A person is defined as an individual. A fetus does not conform to any characteristics of an individual, it is merely a shell. A unique genetic identity does not make a person... it makes a homo sapiens, an animal, and a member of our species, but not yet a person.

But it is a person well before the end of the 9 month term. To argue otherwise would mean premies are not an individuals, but obviously they are.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Thanks for the post, CycloWizard. Because I would generally be a little frustrated at somebody with views opposite mine if they posted an article or other pre-prepared text and did not make much comment on their own thoughts, I would like to ask you to type up some of your own thoughts in addition.

Just working to maintain a balance of my own method of viewing responses, trying to stay equal and fair.

Actually, those are my thoughts. I posted a very similar thread probably six months ago, and that was my post.

 

[judasmachine]

I am seriously thinking of dumping this whole debate, or rather my participation in it. People are going to do it whether it's legal, whether someone considers a zygote a person, or whether I as a male feel I have any say in the matter. When I say I feel it should be legal for those who want it, I get attacked for being a babykiller, like I go around begging people to have an abortion. When I say I feel in my gut that it's not right, I get attacked by the other zealots whom I usually agree with. Lose/Lose. The fact remains I don't think you're a person until your brain is formed and functioning, when that is, is a matter for the OB/GYNs, and geneticists. Whether it's right, who the hell knows, it's not like people have them cause they enjoy the experiance.

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: Meuge


A fetus is not a person.

A person is defined as an individual. A fetus does not conform to any characteristics of an individual, it is merely a shell. A unique genetic identity does not make a person... it makes a homo sapiens, an animal, and a member of our species, but not yet a person.

Dude,

You're playing semantics. Your argument could be easily circumvented with the assertion that a fetus is an individual. You made no attempt to define the difference between a person and individual, nor any attempt to show that a fetus is not an individual. All you did was assert that a genetic identity is a neccessary* but not sufficient condition of personhood. And you didn't support your argument with a scrap of an idea.

The best arguments in favour of abortion only use the "not a person" argument enough to cast a shade of doubt on the topic, while strongly asserting the parent's right to security of person.

You gotta play that one gently, though, people don't like it when you call babies parasites.

*Proof that genetic identity cannot even be a neccessary condition for "otherness":

Identical twins.

2nd Edit: Nice post Cyclo, here's a question: How do you prove that people don't just act on instinct? How do you prove that rationality is not just the internal verbalization of a complex interplay of instincts?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Kibbo86

Originally posted by: HotChic
I just talked to my husband and he helped me clarify one of the points I was making.

What does genetic identity have to do with metaphysical realities, was his question.

My answer was that once you have a genetic identity, you have an "other". You cannot claim to know, fully and truthfully, the state of consciousness of that other. Prior to a genetic identity, there is no other about which to question the state of consciousness.

That's a rather poor argument. That would qualify a cold virus as an "other." I really don't think that you will be able to use existentialism to support a genetic argument (though you could likely do so for other arguments.)

Your claim that genetic fusion is the beginnings of an other is just as arbitrary and unknowable as any estimate on that other's conciousness.

And I'm pretty comfortable saying that nothing without neurons can have a consciousness. I don't think that that's an arbitrary distinction.

That being said, I do think that a feotus does have moral weight. The thing is, I don't see why the same arguments against abortion can't be used to enact laws enforcing involuntary organ transplants from parent to child.

But this is kinda off-topic.

Kudos for trying to elevate this often nasty topic.

I'll concede the weakness of my argument in its present state to the points you're making. If I want to make that argument, I'll need to put more conditions on it than I currently have, which I don't have the energy for right now. Maybe I'll shore it up tomorrow.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Meuge
A fetus is not a person.

A person is defined as an individual. A fetus does not conform to any characteristics of an individual, it is merely a shell. A unique genetic identity does not make a person... it makes a homo sapiens, an animal (not even, as it is only an embryo), and a member of our species, but not yet a person by any measure.

Well, you proved my point to charrison that it can be argued. But can you please write down the reasons WHY you think that it is not a person, the same as I have asked others to back up their statements of belief on this topic? Thanks.

 

[rchiu]

I believe fetus is a person. Fetus may not have all the characteristic of a person at the specific moment when it is consider a fetus, but in 10 month, 1 year, 20 years, it will become a full grown person.

When you define something, you don't just look at the specific moment to define that something, you look at what it is now, and what it will become. Just like when you define a person, you don't look at that person's accomplishment in 1 hour, or even in one month. You define the person's accomplishment over his life time.

 

[Meuge]

Actually I'll skip on this argument.

 

[DaveSimmons]

There is a flaw in CycloWizard's arguments against using heartbeat and brainwave activity to define a person: the examples he cites are temporary interruptions in activity that has previously existed.

Persons in a persistent vegative state (such as Terry Schiavo) or those who are permanently brain dead, are no longer persons, they have been reduced to meat-machines in human form.

If they have a soul it is not relevant to this debate since no one here can offer any credible evidence to when a body is ensouled or when the soul departs.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
There is a flaw in CycloWizard's arguments against using heartbeat and brainwave activity to define a person: the examples he cites are temporary interruptions in activity that has previously existed.

So you would argue that previously having a heartbeat/brainwaves is a necessary condition for personhood? This isn't a flaw in my analysis - you simply proposed something not considered in my analysis - a different criterion. Maybe you could share why this would be a logical basis on which rights might be bestowed.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
There is a flaw in CycloWizard's arguments against using heartbeat and brainwave activity to define a person: the examples he cites are temporary interruptions in activity that has previously existed.

So you would argue that previously having a heartbeat/brainwaves is a necessary condition for personhood? This isn't a flaw in my analysis - you simply proposed something not considered in my analysis - a different criterion. Maybe you could share why this would be a logical basis on which rights might be bestowed.

I don't need to.

You attempted to show these could not be used as criteria because we still grant rights to people who lack them. The problem is that you made an apples-to-oranges comparison comparing an interruption in activity against activity not yet existing.

I didn't claim either could or should be used as criteria, just pointed out that you have not yet given a valid reason for preventing their use.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Humans decide every day which of us will live or die.

Most Americans could keep an extra hundred African childern alive to grow up (in suffering and privation) if we lived like monks on bread veggies and tea in empty one-room apartments. We choose not to. No one reading this fully acts on a fuzzy belief that all human life is sacred.

To me it's an academic exercise to decide whether abortion is tissue removal or infanticide, I support the right to it either way. Just like I chose to eat a nice dinner and not sell all of my property to donate to famine relief. I did give $1,000 to Northwest Harvest so far this year though. Everything in moderation, including the sanctity of human life.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: charrison

It cannot be argued that a fetus is not human. An abortion will terminate a human life and that is all there is too it.

However, there is not guarantee a fetus will make it to term, so one could argue that it is not a person till born. However the odds of a live delivery after the first trimester are quite high. Also medical technology is pushing back the number of weeks premature a baby can be and still survive. Premies are surviving very early in the 3trimester now.

I beg to differ with you on one point. It can be argued that a fetus is not a human/person/right-bearing individual. It often is. What I would like to hear from both sides is WHY you think a fetus is or is not a person. Do you have more comment on why you consider a fetus to be a person?

A fetus is human, it cannot be anything other than human. Unless you blindly want to ignore biology.

I agree with your point of view that a fetus is human. I also agree with the point of view that a fetus is not a person.

Quoting HotChic earlier in the thread:

My answer was that once you have a genetic identity, you have an "other". You cannot claim to know, fully and truthfully, the state of consciousness of that other. Prior to a genetic identity, there is no other about which to question the state of consciousness.

I believe this is nonsense. My opinion is that if a fetus does not have enough brain development to be an independently conscious entity, it is perfectly acceptable for the mother to decide to abort.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HotChic
Thanks for the post, CycloWizard. Because I would generally be a little frustrated at somebody with views opposite mine if they posted an article or other pre-prepared text and did not make much comment on their own thoughts, I would like to ask you to type up some of your own thoughts in addition.

Just working to maintain a balance of my own method of viewing responses, trying to stay equal and fair.

Actually, those are my thoughts. I posted a very similar thread probably six months ago, and that was my post.

Curious, how did find a post that you made six months ago?

 

[Caminetto]

I wonder if more understanding of this issue will come from ATPN. We debate this issue as if our education and understanding were highly advanced, when in truth we are only marginally more advanced than we were a thousand years ago. Most posts will be a regurgitation of what has been taught/learned with attempts to support that position. And no doubt, a thousand years from now they will look back at us in the present and call us superstitious, ignorant fools.

Here's a theory as good as any other:
A fetus is not a human until it receives a ?life force? or ?spirit?. If there is no channel for the spirit to enter, or support for a ?life force?, the fetus or baby will die.

Under that theory, when does the spirit enter? Are we killing a human or removing an opportunity for one?

 

[zendari]

Whatever they decide a fetus should be a person in all situations or no situation, not some situations as it is now.